Our failing grade on international aid and peacekeeping were part of the reason that Canada did not succeed. The other part had to do with strategy.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 22, 2020.

OTTAWA—The bad news is that Canada lost its second bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council.

The good news is that most Canadians don’t really care.

In autopsying the defeat, a journalist said that had the seat been secured, the discussion would have been around the irrelevance of the win.

Ordinary Canadians do not lose any sleep worrying about Canada’s world status. We have a mildly misplaced belief in Canada’s role in peacekeeping and international aid.

But last week’s defeat should force us to take another look at how Canada has slipped so badly on the world stage.

It is not enough to tell the world that Canada matters. Canadian politicians need to convince Canadians that the world matters.

Our failing grade on international aid and peacekeeping were part of the reason that Canada did not succeed.

The other part had to do with strategy.

The key negotiator for Canada was named to the United Nations at the very moment that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau signalled his intention to pull out all the stops in his campaign for a temporary seat.

United Nations Permanent Representative Marc-Andre Blanchard has impeccable Canadian credentials. As chair and CEO of McCarthy Tetrault, he has been named among the 25 most influential lawyers in Canada. He also served as a former president of the Quebec Liberal Party.

He knew the province intimately, but his international bona fides were less evident. So, he needed the help of heavy hitters.

According to press reports, Blanchard recruited two retired politicians for the campaign.

Former Quebec premier Jean Charest and former prime minister Joe Clark both travelled the world in support of Canada’s bid last year.

These political figures are well-known in Canada but their influence on the international scene is less apparent. Charest is also a partner in Blanchard’s former law firm.

Noticeably absent from the list of eminence grise political elders were names like Jean Chrétien, Brian Mulroney, and Lloyd Axworthy.

During his three majority governments, prime minister Chrétien established deep and strong relationships with a number of countries, including China. After he left politics, Chrétien also chaired the InterAction Council, a group comprised of former world leaders who advise the United Nations on issues like climate change.

As for former prime minister Mulroney, his relationships with political leaders in the United States and La Francophonie would have been very helpful. As Barrick International Advisory Board chair, his influence in Africa and Oceania is clear.

On the Security Council seat, China’s robust international aid program was reported to influence up to 50 votes. Canada was not the beneficiary of that influence. Nor were we in good standing with our American neighbours.

As for Axworthy, he served as president of the United Nations Security Council back in 1999-2000. He was also nominated for a Nobel Peace prize for his work in banning land mines.

The trio share robust international relationships across five continents which could have made a difference in the outcome.

Attracting five votes away from either Norway or Ireland would have forced the process into a second ballot, which could have yielded a different result.

It is certainly possible that there was an attempt to enlist the trio. If they turned down the invitation, that also speaks volumes.

Successful politicians usually try to avoid being at the head of losing campaigns. Both Ireland and Norway had entered the race years before Canada.

And Canada has also had almost double the prior Security Council participation rate of either competitor.

Trudeau was obviously very invested in the campaign, but being so personally committed also comes with its own risks.

Having made more than 50 calls to other world leaders, he obviously believed the seat was worth the effort.

The bruising his reputation will take is likely only an international blemish, not a domestic disaster.

But on the home front, the government really needs to undertake a major review of our foreign policy.

Questions around military deployment for peacekeeping need to be answered. So does the time frame for Canada’s commitment to increasing our international aid envelope.

The growing influence of China in the world, and Canada’s Huawei conundrum are also major reasons for the Security Council loss.

Chrétien offered his help on that file at the very beginning of the Canada-China downward spiral.

His offer was spurned, by way of an aggressive public rebuttal by then Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland.

Maybe all-hands-on deck should be the new watchword for Canada’s foreign policy.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

Canadians trapped in the epicentre of the coronavirus in China had to wait in line behind the United States, Japan, South Korea, Jordan, Britain, Portugal, Bangladesh, Egypt, Thailand, and Indonesia to even land a plan in the Wuhan airport.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 10, 2020.

OTTAWA—The wheels of justice grind too slowly in Canada.

Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou was arrested at the Vancouver International Airport back in 2018. She finally got her day in court last month, but the decision on her extradition case is expected to take several months.

Meanwhile, according to Canada’s new ambassador to China, relations between the two countries are grim.

Canadians trapped in the epicentre of the coronavirus in China had to wait in line behind the United States, Japan, South Korea, Jordan, Britain, Portugal, Bangladesh, Egypt, Thailand, and Indonesia to even land a plan in the Wuhan airport.

Our people were treated with a diffidence similar to that afforded citizens of Taiwan, who wanted to be evacuated but were delayed because the Chinese government considers them citizens of their country.

On a business level, Canadians have been privately encouraging the Canadian government to find a way out of the Huawei mess.

The appointment of former business Sinophile Dominic Barton to the post of Canadian ambassador to China was seen as a step in the right direction.

But the ambassador’s two-hour appearance before a parliamentary committee last week laid rest to the notion that his work will be accomplished in short order.

Barton described the frosty welcome he got during his first meeting with his counterparts in decidedly undiplomatic terms.

It’s not as though Barton is new to China. As a key private-sector player, he has been actively engaged at the highest levels for the past two decades.

But representing the government of Canada comes with a whole new set of challenges.

Canada built a strong and stable relationship with China after our country became one of the first in the world to recognize the establishment of the People’s Republic of China back in 1970. That was done under the direction of prime minister Pierre Trudeau, who had travelled the country as a young backpacker before he ever entered politics.

Canada also benefited from the relationship of Dr. Norman Bethune to the China’s revered founder Mao Zedong. The two were so close that Bethune is lionized in Chinese revolutionary history and is better known to most Chinese than he is in Canada. But those deep and strong links have been damaged because of the Wanzhou case.

Former Canadian foreign minister Chrystia Freeland presented the extradition case as a simple matter of the application of the rule of law.

However, foreign affairs experts affirm that the Canadian government would have been within its rights to inform China of the pending extradition request, and Wenzhou could have aborted her passage through Canada.

Instead, Canada is in the difficult position of doing America’s dirty work, while they get their planes to Wuhan and we are kept hanging.

Imagine how embarrassing it would be for Canada if one of our top business leaders was kept under house arrest for more than a year while the judicial extradition case lumbered along in China.

When Freeland departed the foreign ministry, many felt a new approach could end the impasse. But according to Barton, that is going to take some fancy footwork.

Barton told parliamentarians that both sides were literally spitting mad. Chinese are angered that the No. 2 in their country’s largest private company has been arrested at the request of a third country, the United States.

Canadians are equally upset that three Canadian citizens have been caught up in the judicial crossfire.

The “two Michaels,” as they are widely known were both arrested on the heels of the Meng Wanzhou’s detainment, with the Chinese government accusing them of being involved in state secrets.

The third Canadian referenced in committee, Robert Schellenberg, had already been convicted of drug smuggling in China, but his sentenced was increased from 19 years to death in the Meng fallout.

The best outcome of this mess would be a judicial decision in which the test for extradition has not been met.

Meng was alleged to have broken American law on sanctions against Iran but Canada does not apply the same sanctions, therefore an extradition could not be justified on that grounds.

Canadian lawyers made their extradition case on broader terms, claiming that a fraud could have been perpetrated on HSBC because of Meng’s actions.

We won’t know the answer to the judicial process for months to come.

Meanwhile, Canadians are paying the price in every walk of life, up to and including our right to evacuate countrymen from a coronavirus zone.

Time to find a solution to this mess.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

The best outcome would be to resolve the case, with Meng’s return to China before the summer. This would free Liberals to focus on electoral issues, not international irritants. If it takes a former prime minister to get us there, so be it.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 17, 2019.

OTTAWA—Only in Canada is it considered a weakness to recruit a former prime minister to help solve the Huawei problem.

Reaction to the news that Jean Chrétien was willing to act as an envoy to meet with the Chinese leadership in the Meng Wanzhou extradition case was muted.

The offer was floated privately months ago. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with Chrétien several weeks ago to discuss the Chinese deep freeze that has settled on Canada.

Former prime minister Brian Mulroney first publicly broached the idea of Chrétien’s involvement last week.

Both former leaders are getting feedback from the business community that this problem needs fixing.

Chrétien and Mulroney are unlikely allies. They spent a lifetime fighting each other in politics. But both have deep roots in Canadian business, which is anxiously searching for a way to heal this deepening Canada/China rift.

Some Liberal insiders are reticent to recruit a former prime minister, because they fear the optics of Chrétien coming in to fix a Trudeau problem.

These views were reflected in a Globe and Mail quote last week when former Canadian ambassador to China, Guy Saint-Jacques, said it would be a mistake if Chrétien “goes there and gets all the glory and Ms. Meng is free, well, it would give the impression that the prime minister is inexperienced and a neophyte and good old Mr. Chrétien is a reliable fixer.”

Saint-Jacques also said the opposition would pillory the government because the foreign minister and prime minister have repeatedly stated the courts should solve the issue.

The opposition will pillory the government, whatever the course of action.

But Conservatives did not mind when Trudeau recruited their former leader Rona Ambrose to work on free trade talks.

Nor did they complain when James Moore joined top New Democratic Party adviser Brian Topp on the same international trade advisory panel.

The last thing the Liberals need going into the election is to have Meng’s extradition overshadowing a positive economic story.

The Chinese have already taken aim at Canadian pork and canola production. Across the board, Canada-China business deals are being frozen out because of the extradition issue.

Saint-Jacques said the prime minister would risk the wrath of the Americans if the justice minister moved to end the extradition on condition the Huawei chief financial officer return to China.

But Americans have not been doing us any favours lately, and the president himself has publicly speculated that the Meng mess could be used as a bargaining chip in his free trade negotiations with China.

The bottom line is that Chrétien has deep and broad political and business ties with China. He is well-positioned to help extricate the Government of Canada from a mess that has not been of its own making.

Former Canadian ambassador to China John McCallum said early on that there were valid questions to be asked about the reasons behind the American request for extradition.

In McCallum’s words, Meng could make a very good court case against the extradition.

“One, political involvement by comments from Donald Trump in her case. Two, there’s an extraterritorial aspect to her case. And three, there’s the issue of Iran sanctions which are involved in her case, and Canada does not sign on to these Iran sanctions.”

“So I think she has some strong arguments that she can make before a judge.”

McCallum subsequently walked back his comments, saying he regretted saying what he did. But the next day he lost his job after telling a Vancouver reporter it would be “great for Canada” if the United States dropped their extradition request, repeating that any deal must include release of detained Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor.

Since McCallum’s firing, Trudeau has left the ambassadorial post vacant. The solution is a political, not a diplomatic one.

So it makes perfect sense to enlist a former prime minister to broker a much-needed truce.

There is risk for Trudeau in aborting the extradition process. But the risk of doing nothing is even greater.

With the Chinese refusing to take meetings, the dossier is currently a lose-lose situation for Trudeau and Freeland.

The best outcome would be to resolve the case, with Meng’s return to China before the summer. This would free Liberals to focus on electoral issues, not international irritants.

If it takes a former prime minister to get us there, so be it.

Chinese respect for elders is something Canada could learn from.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 28, 2019.

OTTAWA—All countries regularly spy on each other. So the sturm and drang about Huawei’s alleged threat to Canada’s 5G telecommunications network is a little rich.

Huawei has just been invited by India to become a part of its development of the network.

But Five Eye partners, led by the United States, are pushing Canada to ban Huawei based on the claim it could spy for the Chinese government.

Conservative critic Erin O’Toole joined the anti-Chinese chorus last week calling for a Huawei ban.

Similar security claims prompted the recent arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, in anticipation of an extradition hearing to the United States.

The Americans sought the extradition, alleging that Wanzhou attempted to bypass American sanctions on Iran by using a shell company to do business there.

Huawei vigorously denies these allegations.

China increased the bilateral temperature by detaining two Canadian citizens in retaliation and putting a third on death row.

Chairman and acting CFO Liang Hua was in Davos last week inviting foreign leaders to tour the operations and satisfy themselves that Huawei is not spying.

The Chinese are demanding proof of the Five Eyes claim.

How do the allegations align with spying activities by other countries in all parts of the world?

How did the United States have Jamal Kashoggi murder tapes from inside the Saudi Arabian embassy in Turkey unless interceptive instruments had been planted?

Countries always claim they do not spy on their own citizens. If information is uncovered in a back channel surveillance operation, it is always passed along to the appropriate authority.

Canadian Ambassador to China John McCallum, who was fired on Jan. 25 by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, had reinforced China’s position when he stated in a Chinese broadcast interview last week that Canada was not bound by the U.S. sanctions against Iran.

On the sanctions front, most countries joined a deal to lift sanctions in return for Iranian denuclearization commitments.

Trump withdrew American support for the agreement, even though his predecessor had negotiated it in good faith.

Multiple news reports buttress the blockage of the Chinese telecommunications superpower by claiming Canada is offside with other partners in the consortium.

But the Five Eyes have a history of doing what is in their economic interests, under the guise of security.

Huawei is aggressively competing with Silicon Valley giants like Cisco, so any move to limit Chinese growth would definitely assist major competitors in the United States and elsewhere.

When Canada was negotiating the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of Diversity of Cultural Expressions at UNESCO, there was a diplomatic push from the other partners in Five Eyes to block the treaty.

Americans worked with British, claiming the treaty was an attack on their cultural freedom. In reality, the opposition was an attempt to ensure a Hollywood monopoly on global movie distribution.

In the end, only the Americans and the Israelis opposed the convention, with Australia abstaining and 148 countries voting in favor. Economic fights often parade as security matters.

Questions continue to be posed about the political nature of the current American extradition request.

Shortly after Wanzhou’s arrest last December, American president Donald Trump tweeted that he was willing to use the issue as a lever in negotiations with the Chinese over trade disputes.

McCallum and former American ambassador to China Max Baucus both said publicly last week that Trump comments damage the American request, scheduled to be heard in a British Columbia court starting Feb. 6.

Canada’s Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland expressed similar concerns that the president’s comments were politicizing what should have been a strictly judicial process.

However, the question will be politicized, as an extradition order ultimately has to be approved by the justice minister.

That last time Americans asked Canada to extradite a Chinese citizen was the high-profile case of serial killer Charles Ng, a Hong Kong born national convicted of murdering multiple American citizens.

Ng used every legal lever to avoid extradition, arguing unsuccessfully that the potential imposition of the death penalty was a violation of his Charter rights.

The Californian legal system is reported to have spent $20-million on the case. Ng is now on death row awaiting execution.

In the Huawei case, McCallum said extradition “would not be a happy outcome.”

Canada has become the ham in the sandwich of a fight between China and the United States.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has worked hard to stay out of Trump’s crosshairs even when the president imposed tariffs on our country with the false claim of a security threat.

It won’t be possible this time.

Trudeau made the decision but, ultimately, hubris on the prime minister’s team is costing him.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.